ad hominem argument

[Jarthur001]

You are good at this

You seem to be a little girlish in your talk. I don't like any of what I posted.

And who were you going after the door man

ad hominem #3

Bob, Would you like to talk about doctrine that John Calvin wrote?

 

[Blammo]

I goofed. Sorry


http://www.reelwavs.com/movies/sounds/happy_gilmore/happy30.wav

 

[Brother Bob]

I only want to talk about the Institutes that separate the C/A.
I remove the remark but too late, sorry. I thought you said you had not read John Calvin?

To be #3 then you must of considered yours one also?

The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born.

The children of believers are baptized not in order that they who were previously strangers to the church may then for the first time become children of God, but rather that, because by the blessing of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ
These darts are aimed more at God than at us. For it is very clear from many testimonies of Scripture that circumcision was also a sign of repentance. Then Paul calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith....For although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend with their understanding what that sign meant, they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, a mortification that they would afterward practice in mature years. To sum up, this objection can be solved without difficulty: infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.

Some, who believe in God's sovereign election of the "few," also believe that non-elect babies who die will spend eternity suffering in hell. John Calvin said, "there are babies a span long in hell."

 

[Jarthur001]

I only want to talk about the Institutes that separate the C/A.
I remove the remark but too late, sorry. I thought you said you had not read John Calvin?

I have read some of Calvin. Some of what I read was great writing and could be said no better way. Even if you disagree with Calvins views all would have to agree the man had a way with words. Yet.. Other stuff like his book on 2 Cor...was not so hot. I mean..it was ok, But I have read better works on 2 Cor.

Calvinisim is a nickname. Do not think Calvinist follow Calvin. Calvin did NOT even write the 5 points. The 5 points are based on Paul and other writers of the NT. I guess you know that..right? If John Calvin knew all this was over his name, he would turn over in his grave. I know very little about the man. No need to know. I did study history, but it was early church history. I could tell you all I know about the man in 10 min or less. Now..his doctrine it comes from the hands of Paul. This I know. This I have read. As I said..i do know early church history. Calvinisim was called back then, Paulinism

But Paulinism especially has had an immeasurable and blessed influence on the whole course of the history of dogma, an influence it could not have had if the Pauline Epistles had not been received into the canon. Paulinism is a religious and Christocentric doctrine, more inward and more powerful than any other which has ever appeared in the Church. It stands in the clearest opposition to all merely natural moralism, all righteousness of works, all religious ceremonialism, all Christianity without Christ. It has therefore become the con-science of the Church, until the Catholic Church in Jansenism killed this her conscience. “The Pauline reactions describe the critical epochs of theology and the Church.”139 One might 136write a history of dogma as a history of the Pauline reactions in the Church, and in doing so would touch on all the turning-points of the history. Marcion after the Apostolic Fathers; Irenæus, Clement and Origen after the Apologists; Augustine after the Fathers of the Greek Church;140 the great Reformers of the middle ages from Agobard to Wessel in the bosom of the mediæval Church; Luther after the Scholastics; Jansenism after the council of Trent:—everywhere it has been Paul, in these men, who produced the Reformation. Paulinism has proved to be a ferment in the history of dogma, a basis it has never been.141 Just as it had that significance in Paul himself, with reference to Jewish Christianity, so it has continued to work through the history of the Church

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma1.ii.ii.iii.html

Augustine, as seen above, took up the stand of the doctrines of grace and Paulinism became Augustinism.

The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born.

I disagree with this. And this does sound like Calvin's words. Calvin was wrong here.
This however is not Calvinism. Calvinism is the doctrines of grace. Salvation.

The children of believers are baptized not in order that they who were previously strangers to the church may then for the first time become children of God, but rather that, because by the blessing of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ
These darts are aimed more at God than at us. For it is very clear from many testimonies of Scripture that circumcision was also a sign of repentance. Then Paul calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith....For although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend with their understanding what that sign meant, they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, a mortification that they would afterward practice in mature years. To sum up, this objection can be solved without difficulty: infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.

This too sounds very much like Calvins words. This too i disagree with. This too is not Calvinisim. Here is a tip. Calvinisim is not the words of Calvin. It IS... the words of the Bible and when John Calvin writes on the Bible I agree with him. If he does not..i chuck it out the window. Again...Calvinisim is based on the Bible..not John Calvin.

Some, who believe in God's sovereign election of the "few," also believe that non-elect babies who die will spend eternity suffering in hell.

This i am sure is NOT Calvins words. Again..poor writing. No point.


Now Bob, that wasn't to bad was it? Do you see now its not about calvin? The doctrines go back before john was around. Now lets take it to the next step. post something on the doctine of grace ...wrote by john calvin...and tell me what you disagree with. Maybe I will agree with you...who knows. As a calvinist I do not have to take John Calvin's words. I take the Bible.

So..post something on his doctrine of grace..that he wrote...and we shall talk about it. This is much better then attacking a man...is it not?



in Christ..James

 

[Brother Bob]

James;
I am not here to study John Calvin. If you want to spend your time doing so be my guest. What I have read so far I would not want any part to do with the man. I wonder how many Calvinist on this board would escape his wrath. You said you disagreed with him on some things and that is all it took to be a heretic and from there maybe death. I ask you as a christian to a christian would you want someone like John Calvin in the church you are a part of? Would you all the time be worried about you and your family. I mean a woman was in real danger in that time of being called a witch. It could be your wife. That is the kind of man John Calvin was and it is not what I consider a Christian. That is not the only article and that was supposed to be one of his sermons of the babies in hell but there are other articles that say the same thing. I grant you there are Calvin haters that have written things that are not true but it seems as if the dictionary I quoted might be on the up and up. The things I just posted were supposed to be from his sermons. If what I posted is true then why would you or I want to study him. I know you think Paul supported those things in the Institutes but I don't think so. I think you misread them for I believe that every man has had a chance to be saved. If I find something on Grace I will post it, but I am sure you would agree with it for you agree with the Institutes. Now he didn't write them but they were confirmed by his sermons.

 

[Brother Bob]

For the life of me, I can't see why you don't see the hypocrisy in the following sermon of Grace by Calvin;

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both TO INVITE ALL indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men WITHOUT EXCEPTION to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith

If that is not double talk I just don't understand.

He wants his cake and eat it too. He says all and even goes on to say invites them all to the faith in Christ. Then he takes it away. It is the same kind of talk you and the others have to say we have a choice but we can't have it because of who we are. Double talk!

 

[Dale-c]

Bob, we do not care about Calvins sermons.
We are not Calvin worshipers
What James is asking for is for you to take one of the "Doctrines of Grace" commonly known as Calvinism and tell us from the Bible where you see them as wrong.

Please stop attacking Calvin. We don't really care what someone who lived 500 years ago said or believed.

I knew an Armenian who had an affair. So? Who cares?
That is what the whole pst was started about. Ad hominem, argument against the person, not the doctrine.

HOw certain Calvinists have hurt your feelings makes no difference.

FTR I think your accusations of Calvin's murderous ways are quite false but at any rate, it makes no difference to what the Bible says.

Quite shooting the messenger and disprove the message....if you can.

Otherwise, take you slanderous insults elsewhere.

 

[Rippon]

BB , get your facts straight . John Wesley( 200 years after Calvin ) originated the stupid line about babies being a span long in hell . He said that's what Calvinists believed . The trouble was --- no Calvinist said it . It's just like his line that he falsely accused Augustus Toplady of writing -- something like " Only one in 20 are the elect and the others -- let them be damned ." Non-Cals making these unfounded charges and trying to put them in the mouths of Calvinists are to be pitied . Lies are still perpetuatd to this day . Dealing with the record of Scripture is not enough for some . Your John Calvin puppet routine is getting stale .

 

[J.D.]

Brobob, I hate to pile on here (no I don't or else I wouldn't do it) but your red font is getting quite tiring also.

 

[Brother Bob]

That is not what James ask me to do Dale.

 

[Brother Bob]

Rippon;
you are starting to get to me so back off.

 

[Brother Bob]

Let me tell you Calvinist something if you don't like my discussion with James then leave. I don't remember asking you to join in. James ask me a question and I am doing my best to answer him and it is between him and I. He did ask me to get something Calvin had said on Grace and that is what I just did. So bug off.
J.D. I don't care whether you like the red or not, you got that?

John Calvin:
"There are babies a span long in hell."
"Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence, it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt" (2.1.8. Institutes).
"I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infants children in eternal death without remedy, unless that it so seemed meet to God?" (3.23.7. Institutes

 

[Jarthur001]

James;
I am not here to study John Calvin. If you want to spend your time doing so be my guest. What I have read so far I would not want any part to do with the man. I wonder how many Calvinist on this board would escape his wrath. You said you disagreed with him on some things and that is all it took to be a heretic and from there maybe death. I ask you as a christian to a christian would you want someone like John Calvin in the church you are a part of? Would you all the time be worried about you and your family. I mean a woman was in real danger in that time of being called a witch. It could be your wife. That is the kind of man John Calvin was and it is not what I consider a Christian. That is not the only article and that was supposed to be one of his sermons of the babies in hell but there are other articles that say the same thing. I grant you there are Calvin haters that have written things that are not true but it seems as if the dictionary I quoted might be on the up and up. The things I just posted were supposed to be from his sermons. If what I posted is true then why would you or I want to study him. I know you think Paul supported those things in the Institutes but I don't think so. I think you misread them for I believe that every man has had a chance to be saved. If I find something on Grace I will post it, but I am sure you would agree with it for you agree with the Institutes. Now he didn't write them but they were confirmed by his sermons.

Bob,

If you do not want to talk about his doctrine, why not stop talking about HIM all together? And that is the point of tread. Being that you do not WANT to study Calvin..your own words....Why not stay away from Calvin treads?? now that's a idea.

I am a Calvinist...I will STAND for the doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace IS the gospel.

I'm just about done with this tread. I hope you now see that John Calvin is NOT the same as Calvinisim. Please tell me you see this much. If I or any Calvinist Followed the man...we would believe every word he said. I trust you see this. This is to simple to miss.

Calvinisim is from the Bible...not from Calvin. I hope you took the time to read up on Paulinism and see that it WAS in the early church. It came from Pauls writings. It is now called Calvinisim. You did read that...didn't you??


In Christ..James

 

[Brother Bob]

John Calvin:
"There are babies a span long in hell."
"Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence, it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt" (2.1.8. Institutes).
"I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infants children in eternal death without remedy, unless that it so seemed meet to God?" (3.23.7. Institutes

This is John Calvin's sermon

 

[Brother Bob]

James;
It would be nice if I didn't have to confront the John Calvin doctrine but that is not possible on this board. There are too many Calvinist on here so I guess we will carry on to carry on.

I can't find Calvinist in the Scriptures at all. I do find Christians though. God Bless,

 

[J.D.]

Brobob, this rancor is getting too personal. Tell ya what, let's me and you find something we agree on and be on the same side for a change. Do you ever post in any of the other topical forums?

 

[Brother Bob]

Every where I go the C/A comes up the first thing and I respond. I think its too pesonal too but people are not going to talk to me like you just did "you wanted to pour it on" like rippon did "get your facts straight" like Dale did when James and I were really getting along pretty good and you three came in and everything went crazy again. I came back on and there was three posts attacking me. I posted John Calvin's sermons saying babies in hell and was told to get my facts straight. Well I think others need to get their facts straight.

Now if we are to be nice to each other you will find that I can be very nice and would much much rather talk and enjoy this but when I am attacked it is my nature to respond. I have always been that way and I am too old to change. I hope we can work this out and be friends maybe.

 

[J.D.]

Bob, do you believe that the Song of Solomon describes God's love for His people? If so, come over to the thread on the Song of Solomon and help me. Apparently, I'm the only soul on this board that believes that.

 

[Dale-c]

Now if we are to be nice to each other you will find that I can be very nice and would much much rather talk and enjoy this but when I am attacked it is my nature to respond. I have always been that way and I am too old to change. I hope we can work this out and be friends maybe.

Do you not have the freewill to change that BB?

Seriously though. I am fine with a nice factual discussion. I for one would love to talk on point. BUt you keep bringing up Calvin's sermons and both James and I have stated that we do not believe everything that Calvin taught so that doesn't matter.

I can't speak for James, but if you would like to discuss based soley on what they Bible says and not what John Calvin preached, then fine.
But please do not keep bringing up things that none of us believe that are off the point.

Oh, and if you misunderstood my post earlier, I do apologize.
I did NOT mean to attach you, I was only trying to show one way that one might attack the person rather than the issue. If I was unclear, please accept my sincere apology.

Dale

 

[Brother Bob]

There you go Dale laying it all in my lap when you never stop. That is the problem you think when someone else says something it is wrong but you never see how you are always spitting venom.
If its going to stop it has to be a 2 way street. Now if you are going to keep quoting the 5 point institutes then John Calvin is a natural part of it. I don't see if Calvin is not Calvinist then why does it bother you and rippon and others when John Calvin is attacked.